PFT: Redskins considering nuclear option to restore cap space

According to Mark Maske and Mike Jones of the Washington Post, the Redskins are spreading the word in Indianapolis that they&#8217;re considering legal action aimed at delaying the start of free agency while litigation proceeds regarding the question of whether the Redskins&#8217; legal rights were violated. The Redskins are telling agents that any contract talks will be delayed until the situation is resolved.If the Redskins proceed, it would be a big deal. And if they delay the start of free agency until their claims are resolved, it would be a huge deal.

We addressed the situation a couple of weeks ago, reporting that the Redskins were still upset about the situation but explaining that their options are limited. They could bebluffing about going to court in order to get, for example, half of their cap money back (i.e., the $18 million that would apply to this year&#8217;s cap). But the NFL could choose to call their bluff and go to court.

Either way, Daniel Snyder could be inching toward ground previously occupied by the late Al Davis: Snyder could soon be suing his partners.

Snyder is completely within his rights to do so and I really hope that he does. It would be an open and shut case and I would hope that the court would be punitive against the NFL's leadership who are repeat offenders.

Judge Doty just threw out the Player's collusion case. I don't see how an owner would have a better chance than the union, who would be the injured party.

Doty threw out the case because the NFLPA agreed in this last CBA that they had waived any claims of collusion from the past. Dumbest concession ever! Doty also denied the claim because the NFLPA signed off on the penalties to begin with.

The Redskins/Cowboys case is no where near as dead as the NFLPA's case. The original arbitrator also didn't rule out the Redskins/Cowboys right to take the case to court. All the arbitrator did/didn't do was not rescind the penalties.

Also, the notion that the NFLPA was the injured party in this case is a joke. The damages that could be claimed by the NFLPA are speculative, at best. The REAL injured parties were the ones that were blackballed by a group of owners whom Jerry Jones and Danieal Snyder have combined to generate more revenue for them than entire divisions worth combined.

Awfully fishy that the teams that were illegally under that imaginary salary cap floor weren't also punished for violating the polar end of that handshake agreement, eh?

Smart move by Jerry to let the Skins be the ones going after the league while he has no fingerprints on any of this.

That way if the Skins win, we get our cap space back and if the Skins lose, they are the ones the owners are pissed at and not Dallas. So Jerry can still get his SB since he will not be the guy everybody is pissed at.

Smart move by Jerry to let the Skins be the ones going after the league while he has no fingerprints on any of this.

That way if the Skins win, we get our cap space back and if the Skins lose, they are the ones the owners are pissed at and not Dallas. So Jerry can still get his SB since he will not be the guy everybody is pissed at.

Smart move by Jerry to let the Skins be the ones going after the league while he has no fingerprints on any of this.

That way if the Skins win, we get our cap space back and if the Skins lose, they are the ones the owners are pissed at and not Dallas. So Jerry can still get his SB since he will not be the guy everybody is pissed at.

With the news that the Redskins are talking about taking the NFL to court over their salary cap penalty, the issue has returned to the front burner. And a video shot last September has emerged and it shows Goodell talking to a group of fans about the Redskins salary cap penalty.

In the video, Goodell appears to say that both the teams in the league and the National Football League Players Association were told before the uncapped year that there could be sanctions against teams that spent in such a way as to create “competitive issues”. Here is what he said early in the video:

“When we went into the uncapped year we told everybody including the union that we were going to make sure that competitive issues were going to be considered when we came out of it.”

And, towards the end of the video, he seems to reiterate that the union signed off on the concept of punishment for competitive balance issues in advance of the uncapped year.

“Those are the kinds of things that need to be balanced in and the players association and us agreed to that. That’s what we agreed to and every club was told that in advance and the players association was told that that would be an issue when we negotiated.”